engineering

uk_planning_checker

UK permitted-development (GPDO 2015, England) rules engine for extensions, loft conversions and change of use. Returns a verdict (likely_pd / requires_permission / complex), applicable PD class, conditions and flags (listed building, Article 4, conservation area, AONB). Indicative, verify with the LPA.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`listed`	No
`location`	No
`proposal`	Yes
`article_4`	No
`use_class`	No	Existing use class (C3, C1, E, B2, B8, F1, F2, SG)
`proposed_use`	No	Proposed use class (change of use only); 'same' if unchanged
`property_type`	Yes
`conservation_area`	No
`extension_depth_m`	No	Rear extension depth (m), for extension proposals
`national_park_aonb`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that results are 'Indicative, verify with the LPA' and enumerates the output shape (verdict, PD class, conditions, flags). It does not discuss side effects, but the tool is framed as a rules engine/checker, implying a read-only calculation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy: it states scope, enumerates outputs, and provides the essential caveat. Key information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to tool selection and safe invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the verdict categories, PD class, conditions, and flags, plus the legal scope and LPA caveat. It could additionally state required inputs or assumptions, but the overall picture is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 30%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by mapping flags (listed building, Article 4, conservation area, AONB) to parameters and naming some proposal types. However, it does not clarify several enum parameters such as property_type, location, or the full set of proposal values that the schema alone leaves to the agent to interpret.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource ('UK permitted-development (GPDO 2015, England) rules engine') and a concrete set of scenarios ('extensions, loft conversions and change of use'). It also names the returned verdict categories and flags, making the tool's unique function clear relative to sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this for UK/England permitted-development assessments involving extensions, lofts, or change of use. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools, but the domain and proposal scope are specific enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All engineering tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct domains (structural, carbon, compliance, heat pumps), but several overlap at a surface level: calculate_carbon, building_carbon_footprint, and uae_climate_ghg all deal with carbon; estimate_cooling_load and thermal_load both compute cooling loads; and multiple UK/UAE compliance checkers have similar 'readiness/checker/precheck' names. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent could still select the wrong tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb-led patterns (assess_epbd_score, calculate_carbon, check_uae_bim_compliance, estimate_cooling_load, get_technical_dd_quote) and noun-led phrases (building_carbon_footprint, building_readiness, digital_renovation_passport, roi_calculator, thermal_load). Sub-groups like check_* and eurocode_* are consistent internally, but the overall set has no unifying convention, which adds cognitive load.

Tool Count2/5

With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 'heavy' range, even though the engineering domain is broad. Many tools are highly specialized (e.g., part_s_ev, mees_checker, dgnb_bim_readiness), and the large count risks overwhelming an agent trying to pick the right one. The scope may justify the number, but it edges into too-many territory.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of building and sustainability assessments: carbon, energy, compliance (EU/UK/UAE), structural design, cost benchmarking, and data centres. However, there are gaps in adjacent areas common to building engineering—such as acoustic design, water/sanitation, electrical systems, or thermal bridging—which would be expected from a general 'engineering' server. It is reasonably complete for its apparent sustainability/regulatory focus, but not universally.

Resources

Need Help?